Yes, the outcome matters because people need to witness it in some way. Art involves communication. Anything else is just masturbation. This is why I think that obscure and impenetrable art is bad art.

The 'art of war' should really be the 'craft of war' imo. Its a different use of the word 'art' so I don't think it needs to be included under the definition of art as we mean it here.

And I agree that art is pre-meditated and intended, and also artificial.

where does the line come between an art and a craft?

I would say that a craft is just a skill. I think it's quite distinct, but that lots of things require both, such as painting. You need to be able to wield a brush effectively in order to create the art. The art is about transmitting something to someone else. Baking is a craft, a skill, but there's no art involved. All the art that I can think of requires, in practice, a certain level of crafstmanship, though that is not the essence of the art.

People often use the words to mean things other than how I would define them here, which is fair enough, but I'm just using these words to distinguish what I see as two distinct ideas.

i think the simplest differance between art and craft is that you do art because at the end you want to create something you can admire, and your whole mission, everything you drive towards is destined to the finish.

you do a craft for the doings sake, what i mean is, knitting a jumper, sure you are happy to have a jumper at the end, but it's the knitting and spinning and etc that your actually doing it for.

both are connected, hence the "arts and crafts movement". you get art galleries and you get craft fairs, both can intermix, both tred a thin line, but the line is still there.

i thik the misconception of warfare as art comes from the mythologies and mystisism of the japanese over selling themselves.
i can make a really good point while teaching swordfighting, but it would be taken alot more seriously, the way i pharse some sentances if i was a wrinkled little old chinese guy 300 years old. warefare isnt really an art, nor is killing or combat......but thats the way the japanese like to add mystisism to their combat.

Yep, sure. I agree with both of you. And your definitions Arty, are the ones to which I would normally adhere, however, if we are analysing craft and art it brings to mind, for instance, The Mona Lisa; Is it the craft of the artist or the art of the craftsman that makes it a masterpiece? Is an artist born or bred? Is a murderer...?

righ you hit on a point. some people will make a picture famous simply on the pictures own brillieance. others class the pictures greatness by who did them. but i think thats just down to personnal oppinion.

born or bred, both.
some of us are born with a gift and flare for art, we do it every minite we can spare, others just take to it because they enjoy it. most murderers are made that way, because to a certain extent they dont belive they will be cought, or they wish to be cought, for whatever reason they dont have that ability to resist killing. while people like me, what i term as natural born killers are quite aware we could be cought, and can do it compleatly logical for whatever reason, we are born that way.

So are you an artist or a murderer?

I think Leonardo had to both an artist and a craftsman, but I think that it is the art that makes it the masterpiece. A exquisitely painted picture that is nevertheless mundane is no masterpiece. Though I guess a picture that would have been a masterpiece had the painter been able to put down what he wanted is no masterpiece either.

The thing is that many artists have the technical skill to paint like Leonardo, but few have the vision.


In terms of born and bred, I tend to go for bred most of the time, with the earlier years being the most important. However, when an analysis of the criminality of adopted children was done, it was shown that their criminality corresponded more closely to the criminality of their biological father than their adopted father.

soulful......if i did kill i would be a murderer...not an artist, no matter how well i did it.

vision can simply become personnal style.

one size doesnt fit all, most people will learn from life to kill......others wont ever learn, a few are born that way

Killing is an art to some but it makes you a murderer to state laws and Human Rights...so you can take it as both.....as for me its and art

killing doesn't necessarily make you a murderer, it can make you a hero.....that, my friend, is where the art lies........but no, seriously, serial killers have this whole "i see humanity for what it is" mystery to them, as does the artist (according to nietzsche), so, hmm......perhaps

But the concept of 'seeing humanity for what it is' is totally relative to the individual. Isn't it more a case of 'how we see it' and our 'relationship to it'? Is how we view humanity just a reflection of ourselves? Is killing art? no more than driving is art; no more than playing is art; no more than planting a tree, is art. Art is the depiction of such, not the act.

there are two ways to see, according to Nietzsche......one, we see with the eyes of Dionysus (Greek god of wine and drunkeness).....it is with these eyes that we see someting; for example, we look at a painting and see a woman experiencing some emotion.........then there's the concept behind Apollo (reality) which is when we see this same painting, we actually know, though don't necessarily realize, that it is painted with certain colors, shades, style, lines, contrasts, etc.........now, even with this stems more concepts: for example, this women, her emotion, to some she is crying and to others she is laughing.....even then, why is she crying, why is she laughing....and on and on and on..........also, when we see just the colors and lines and whatnot, what techniques are used, what color could have been applied first, etc, etc, etc.........now, the reason nietzsche declared artists as being those who can truly see the world, my guess is that it is the artist who sees a moment in time for what it really is, how it really is, and he captures it......where he fails however, is that we don't how it is to be seen, but we know how we can see it, and perhaps should see it.....but it is the artist who truly sees it............if that makes any sense

cubism (picasso, and.....i forgot his fucking name.....it will come to me, hold on........Ceizanne.....yeah, Ceizanne).......cubism was the visual depiction of this philosophy, where rather than capturing the moment empirically, they tried adding in more of Apollo through a Dionysian fashion.....that is, if you don't know cubism, you take sections of everything (like the front of the face, the left side of the face, right side of face, top of face, bottom of face, and within the face) and put it together......

I think I know what you mean. But the idea for an artist is to share that vision, presumably with non-artists. They teach you how to view the world. Do all artists strive for Apolloic vision? Is it learned or innate in some? My Apolloic vision is through a telescope at the moment, seems so close and yet so far. Do you draw? paint?

Killing is still not art.

no, i don't draw or paint, i write stories and play music, but i am not a "artist" in its specific term.......

It depends on your perspective... I can see it being considered an Art form. But it wouldn't be appreciated.

i would appreciate it.....i do.......so you're theory is flawed.....ha!

Okay, what do art and killing have in common?

Well with both the style would vary person to person... Is there a difference between killing with a headshot and killing with a katana? I'd say so.